Romney on the 47%

I'm not really surprised he feels this way, I am surprised he vocalized it. Sure he probably didn't think it would be recorded but what is there to gain by making this statement in a room full of people who are supporting / donating to you anyway?

If the networks carry this clip, I think Romney may have done himself in. It may have happened early enough in the election season to be forgotton about, but he was already behind the 8-ball, this is going to hurt him.

Well, considering the media was caught themelves on audio plotting against Romney, any misttep and the media will relentlessly attack him, like they do all Republicans.

Meanwhile, all you see and hear is crickets and tumbleweeds from the media over the fact that Obama and his State Dep't knew for a minimum of two days that there was a plot against our embassies, yet we chose not to notify our staffs there.......but don't worry, Prez Advisor Valerie Jarrett had a full protective detail while vacationing in Martha's Vineyard......at least we're secure knowing she's safe.

Well, considering the media was caught themelves on audio plotting against Romney, any misttep and the media will relentlessly attack him, like they do all Republicans.

I wish conservatives would stop playing the media victim card. The most watched cables news network is foxnews, the radio airwaves are dominated by conservative talk shows, and the internet is the ever equalizer for reporting stories. The "relentless media" works for both sides, they are about ratings (which is fine).

Meanwhile, all you see and hear is crickets and tumbleweeds from the media over the fact that Obama and his State Dep't knew for a minimum of two days that there was a plot against our embassies, yet we chose not to notify our staffs there.......but don't worry, Prez Advisor Valerie Jarrett had a full protective detail while vacationing in Martha's Vineyard......at least we're secure knowing she's safe.

There isn't much evidence to back up what you are saying, just idle speculation for now. Just like their is speculation that Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks before they happened. It's a pretty big jump to suggest the US would knowingly allow their embassies to be overran (or their towers to be attacked). It just doesn't jive with the follow up; sending in special forces to protect various facilities immediately after. We are willing to use FAST teams after the attacks but not before? a little common sense goes a long way here. When something more then "a senior diplomatic source" comes out then is deserves more attention, or its own thread...

---As for Romney, he's got a real problem. Of that 47%, half are seniors who probably aren't going to like the fact he basically called them moochers. He needs a lot of that 47% probably a third by my estimate because he was never going to win the other 53% outright.

I'm not really surprised he feels this way, I am surprised he vocalized it. Sure he probably didn't think it would be recorded but what is there to gain by making this statement in a room full of people who are supporting / donating to you anyway?

You mostly answered your own question, he definitely did not expect those comments to leave the room. But also, you say it to pander for contributions. You get people to go from planning to donate $800 to donating $1,400, that's why you would talk to them that way

If the networks carry this clip, I think Romney may have done himself in. It may have happened early enough in the election season to be forgotton about, but he was already behind the 8-ball, this is going to hurt him.

I disagree. As Chuck Todd of NBC pointed out last night, Obama had a similar incident with the "cling to their guns and religion" comment last time, and even though a big fuss was made of that and it certainly hurt him, it wasn't that terrible of a blow and he won anyway.

I wish conservatives would stop playing the media victim card. The most watched cables news network is foxnews, the radio airwaves are dominated by conservative talk shows, and the internet is the ever equalizer for reporting stories. The "relentless media" works for both sides, they are about ratings (which is fine).

Agreement here. With so much conservative media also available in this country, the never-ending belly-aching by conservatives on this issue looks out of touch with reality. To me, it looks more like a sport, with the left media against the right media. And like in a sport, when the "fans" don't see the outcome that they like, they cry foul and cry conspiracy.

It also proves what Jimmy Leeds as saying. It is literally the only station on TV willing to bash liberals while the libs have pretty much every other station.

The only medium that conservatives really outnumber liberals is radio.

There are only 3 major cable news networks and foxnews has more viewers then the other two "liberal" ones combined. Conservatives outnumber liberals in TV and Radio, the only area liberals have an edge is print. Never the less, who cares, it doesn't matter. The point is there is clearly no mass media conspiracy against conservatives, at least not any more then they are against liberals too.

You mostly answered your own question, he definitely did not expect those comments to leave the room. But also, you say it to pander for contributions. You get people to go from planning to donate $800 to donating $1,400, that's why you would talk to them that way

I disagree. As Chuck Todd of NBC pointed out last night, Obama had a similar incident with the "cling to their guns and religion" comment last time, and even though a big fuss was made of that and it certainly hurt him, it wasn't that terrible of a blow and he won anyway.

I'm pretty sure FoxNews is ahead of CNN and MSNBC combined on ratings. So the real mystery is why there isn't another conservative TV station because it looks like there's some real money to be made there (not that I'm suggesting it's so easy to create a TV station that I could do it). But I do not consider a couple of networks splitting one audience while one network has a monopoly on the other to be a situation where media bias has severely tilted the playing field.

The bottom line of it all is that people are seeking the news that they want to hear, and when a media outlet starts saying things that they don't want to hear, they change the station. If there were 50 liberal media outlets and 1 conservative one, it would not be as if, "The conservatives can't get their message out. It's all just liberal spin!" All of the people who want the conservative message would be on that one place where they know that they can reliably read what they want to read. I think that the effect that media have on politics is far more subtle than just "3 out of 4 tv newsmen agree. . ." That's how people pick which contact lenses to buy, not whether they want tax hikes to be part of a deficit reduction program.

Squishy, you are clearly forgetting the Fox News leads in CABLE news, their rating have yet to touch the "Big 3" who are clearly controlled by and advocate for the left, as they have done for decades.

What does leading in cable news have to do with anything? They have a market and they play to it at the expense of objective and constructive journalism.

I turned on Fox last night to see how they would react to the story and Greta briefly touched on it saying "So apparently there is a new video, I'm not sure I haven't seen it, where Mitt Romney says Americans are dependent on Government"... Completely avoiding the actual reason why the video is getting attention. Then she switched back to the Fox News coverage of "Obama lets American's die in the Middle East" coverage.

What does leading in cable news have to do with anything? They have a market and they play to it at the expense of objective and constructive journalism.

I turned on Fox last night to see how they would react to the story and Greta briefly touched on it saying "So apparently there is a new video, I'm not sure I haven't seen it, where Mitt Romney says Americans are dependent on Government"... Completely avoiding the actual reason why the video is getting attention. Then she switched back to the Fox News coverage of "Obama lets American's die in the Middle East" coverage.

Unfortunately, they play it too left, unlike the liberal cheerleaders on the other networks.

Well, considering the media was caught themelves on audio plotting against Romney, any misttep and the media will relentlessly attack him, like they do all Republicans.

This is such a tired and lame argument that the entire media has it out for the right wing. Do I agree that certain networks and pundits are slanted one way or another? Absolutely. And most people realize this. However, this "woe is us" BS about the news media having it in for Republicans is ridiculous. Who were the ones that destroyed Howard Dean in 2004 for getting overly excited at his own campaign rally? I remember MSNBC playing that innocuous moment on loop for weeks. I seem to remember the media recently destroying Anthony Wiener when they had a chance just as they did Larry Craig and the other nimrods who cant keep their dicks in their pants. I also notice the local media taking that Vito guy in Brooklyn to task (rightfully so) every chance they get. The media will attack anyone who give them the ammunition to do so.

This is the problem with Romney: He's a terrible candidate. He's extremely awkward and his background doesn't lend him the ability to connect with people. G.W. Bush had a similar "privileged" background, but he had the ability to talk to anyone and relate to them. I've said since day one that I felt Bush was a good guy who meant well, but I hated his politics and a lot of the people he had giving him advice. I think Romney is a scumbag and I hate his politics. It absolutely amazes me that the Republicans have taken to this guy so much after his term as Massachusetts governor. Obamacare was basically created by Romney! This election was giftwrapped for the GOP. They had the perfect opportunity to nominate someone who could get moderates on their side. Instead they nominate the literal caricature of a Republican. The stuffy, rich, "I'm better than you", pandering to the far right, guy. McCain went far right in 2008 and got beat. Far right doesnt win national elections!

In 1982 and 1983 during Reagan's first term, unemployment was the highest its EVER been until 2010. It went down to 7.5% before the 84 election and Reagan obliterated Mondale in the election, when the Democrats had a perfect chance to nominate someone that could've (at the very least) competed with Reagan. Why did Reagan win? Because he was a much better candidate than Mondale who wasnt even the party's first choice because *SHOCKER* the media destroyed Gary Hart (this wasnt 1988 when Donna Rice came about). It's exactly what's happening with this election. The only difference is that this election will be closer. People like Obama. People liked Reagan. Not many people like Romney. Not many liked Mondale. Reagan dealt with real economic woes his first term but yet still mauled his opponent because his opponent was a complete moron.

And of course the right wing take issue with the fact that it got out at all and never bother with the substance and the ones that do (David Brooks, Linda McMahon, Scott Brown) are taken to task by the Limbaughs of the world. "Waahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Its all the media's fault!" No. Its your candidate's fault. Your completely out-of-touch ridiculous candidate who should've been laughed out of the primaries the moment we saw him treat his dog like a piece of luggage.

Romney losing this election could be the best thing for the GOP. The current power brokers in the party will be forced to realize that the majority of this country is socially progressive and fiscally conservative. Pandering to the extremes of the party will not win elections when the demographics of this country are changing so much.

Is it because of the people whose mortgage he paid anonymously for 20 years that media people tried to get to talk bad about Romney..............and that's how they found out it was Romney paying their mortgage?

Romney losing this election could be the best thing for the GOP. The current power brokers in the party will be forced to realize that the majority of this country is socially progressive and fiscally conservative. Pandering to the extremes of the party will not win elections when the demographics of this country are changing so much.

This. I'm liberal, but I'm tired of the debate going the way it has for the past 10 years or so. At this point, it's each side screaming a predetermined set of talking points, and the one who screams best wins. Most people I know are stuck picking a candidate with whom they disagree on half the issues. I'm lucky enough to agree with most of what Obama has tried to do (though I have issues with his effectiveness, just like everybody else), but I feel for people who really don't have a candidate they can legitimately get behind. Also, progress is made when intelligent people debate over things they care about, not when talking heads stress the party line, regardless of their own feelings (which I think Romney is doing, especially re. health care). We aren't making progress, because both parties are holding fast to certain things, whether they agree with them or not, and refusing to compromise because it would show weakness, even when compromise would make sense (Bettman and Fehr much?). The media makes it worse, since they force the same talking points through over and over again. Throw in lobbyists and unlimited donations, and you realize that the American people are stuck voting for parties, not policies, and not people, even if a bunch of voters don't realize that (the I'd have a beer with that guy factor). We've gone from an innovative, heroic country, to a country who is falling farther and farther behind in education, while relying on a costly military to remain a world power, and we deserve better than we're getting as we try to solve these problems.

Also, I have no problem with fiscal conservatives even though I happen to be fiscally liberal. I think foreign policy and economic policy need to be flexible, and should be decided by the smartest people, regardless of their political views. It drives me crazy that the party of fiscal conservatives continues to support bigotry and refuses to acknowledge separation of church and state.

Edited by mouse, 18 September 2012 - 06:17 PM.

1

Sumus Legio
You don't turn this around in a couple shifts. Its going to take a little time, but I know the guys will come back. Because I can see it. -- Jacques Lemaire

Is it because of the people whose mortgage he paid anonymously for 20 years that media people tried to get to talk bad about Romney..............and that's how they found out it was Romney paying their mortgage?

Or is he a "scumbag" for 'killing' that poor women 6 years after she lost her job?

Jimmy you realize two of those links come from that damn liberal huff post right?

But hey, I learned something about Romney I didn't, and kudos to him. Those are good things he's done no question. I think I could have supported pre-2012 Romney, just like I could have supported a pre-2008 McCain. But pander to far and too hard to the right and you lose the middle, Republicans should take a cue from Obama because despite the rhetoric he has been a pretty center-left president.

I didn't really see all that much that was objectionable about what he said (although I lean conservative). From what I've read, he made what I think is a true statement that 47 percent of the country pays no income tax, or, on the whole are net gainers from the government's largesse (i.e. the amount of taxes they pay is less than the amount of transfers they get from other taxpayers). And he's right that most of those people won't vote for him no matter what.

Too early to make any predictions on the actual fallout. There's no "science" to politics, despite what virtually every talking head would have you believe.

The statements on the Palestinians not wanting peace are much more interesting. My guess is that more voters than not feel the same way. Will be interesting to see what, if anything, the Obama campaign tries to make out of that.

0

I collect spores, molds and fungus.Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

Is it because of the people whose mortgage he paid anonymously for 20 years that media people tried to get to talk bad about Romney..............and that's how they found out it was Romney paying their mortgage?

Or is he a "scumbag" for 'killing' that poor women 6 years after she lost her job?

Those are very admirable things. I knew about the boat saving, but the other examples are new. It still doesn't change the fact that his policies and politics are destructive and the fact that he has proven time and time again he will say anything to win an election.

I guess you just proved Romney's point. The people who are going to get all jazzed up about this stuff aren't going to vote for him anyway.

0

I collect spores, molds and fungus.Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?